A not-so-'Titanic' dilemna.. Hardly a dilemma at all.. in fact..

: A curious question. As everyone here is well aware, the illicit drug industry is alive and well in the world, particularly in the U.S. 'Crack' is a popular drug amongst the poor; whereas the use 'nose candy' amongst the rich might be explained away as nothing more than decadent bourgeois morality or capitalist guilt, the involvement of the indigent in the procurement and use of these exceptionally expensive products would seem to defy conventional logic (as well as, one would think, Marxist theory). One would think that a product of this sort, the results of consumption being so unsavory and sure, would lead one to shy away from the lot - yet, it would seem the reverse is the case.

Not so. Drugs are a special kind of commodity - one capable of rendering and altering physical/mental human desires beyond the normal, 'natural' state. This means though the risks and seemingly 'unstable' market conditions, in reality, there exists a market with virtually infinite demands. It is a high-risk, high-pay market, one that outshines the stock market. Stock markets are limited by economic laws and tendencies. Drugs are illegal, therefore, there are no legal/economical limitations. Once you get hooked, you will use it until you die.

Besides, the investment put into making producing these drugs are nearly non-existent. The local peasants who grow coca leaves are paid only 50 cents per 1 kilogram. In the lower valleys, these leaves are traded at 900 dollars. When it arrives in America, the price shoots up to 86 thousand dollars per kilogram. Heroine costs 23 thousand dollars per kilogram in the USA.

A high priced product that is mass produced with little investment, which has a market with no recession and endless demand. What could be better than that?

: Thus, my question: What is the 'use-value' of crack? Were a pure and unequivocatingly socialist state to conjure itself into existance, would the average worker be allowed his precious share of this peculiar 'commodity'? How, if this were so, would such a share be decided upon?

The UV of drugs who first produce it's ingredients is virtually non-exisistent, at least, no value there as a potential commodity. Cheap stuff, easy to get, doesn't use it etc.. The UV of drugs to dealers is that it could be sold at an price so high that it's worth taking the risk. The reason drugs are illegal is based on a moral issue. It would be the same in Socialist states.